Re: [codec] Adopting draft-valin-codec-guidelines-06 as a WG item

[Jean-Marc Valin <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

The current version of the guidelines document mainly cites the charter
on IPR issues. This makes sense because this draft can change neither
the charter, nor any IETF IPR policies. Also, judging from the
discussion on the earlier versions of the draft that differed from the
charter, it seems like the current text is still the one that generates
the least objection. So unless there is wide consensus on an alternate
text that doesn't contradict the current charter, I think we can live
with the current text.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc



On 10-10-08 07:40 AM, Erik Norvell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Reading the codec guidelines document it still includes arguable and unnecessary generic statements on the problems associated with encumbered technology. The present guidelines do not at all safeguard that the codec can be implemented by anybody as freely as was the intention when the WG was established. Royalty-free conditions do not at all mean free implementation.
> 
> The charter implies that the goal of the WG is to produce a codec without any usage restrictions.
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/charters
> ==============
>   There exist codecs that are standardized, but that cannot be widely
>   implemented and easily distributed; according to reports, the presence
>   of various usage restrictions (e.g., in the form of requirements to pay
>   royalty fees, obtain a license, enter into a business agreement, or meet
>   other special conditions imposed by a patent holder) has hindered
>   adoptions of such codecs in interactive Internet applications.
> ==============
> 
> Considering these exceptional intentions with the codec WG, the guidelines should also be exceptional compared with the customary IETF guidelines. Preferably, the guidelines should clearly state that the intention is that the codec should be freely available to any implementer. The IETF Patent Disclosure and Licensing Declaration template, part VI Licensing Declaration, has an option a) reading "No Licenses required for Implementers" (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3905). I suggest the guidelines should state that all contributors should comply with this option. As a further clarification of this option a) to meet the intentions behind the establishment of the WG the guidelines should expressly request that "no implementer shall be obliged to make a compensation of any kind to the holder of any patent covering the codec or be obliged to make any undertaking towards to the holder of any patent covering the codec".
> 
> Admittedly the suggestion really means an exceptional requirement on the patent holders which would not at all be adequate in general for all IETF WGs and would provide an exceptional freedom for the implementers, but considering the exceptional intentions with the WG I believe exceptional requirements can be justified. If not, the codec may end up adding to the list of encumbered codecs which the WG set out to avoid.
> 
> Best regards,
> Erik 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rosenberg
> Sent: den 24 september 2010 20:30
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [codec] Adopting draft-valin-codec-guidelines-06 as a WG item
> 
> At the last IETF meeting, we discussed adopting the codec guidelines document as a working group item. This did not pass, due to concerns over whether it was in the right direction. We put out a call for alternative documents over the next 5 week period.
> 
> Some text was proposed by Stephan for inclusion, which was incorporated into the document. Stephan also contributed some comments, including a few open issues which still require some discussion.
> 
> However, the chairs feel that it is not necessary for all open items to be closed prior to adopting a document as a working group item. Indeed, discussion on the content of the document is a good sign that it is a reasonable foundation for the working group item. Given the lack of alternative documents to use as a starting point, the chairs plan on adopting this as a working group item in two weeks time.
> 
> If you disagree, please speak up - and even better - submit an alternative document.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.